The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids’ Learning -- And How To Help Them Thrive Again

by Jared Cooney Horvath

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Parenting, Teaching, School, Technology

360 pages, Paperback

Published December 3, 2025

Reviews

[Autumn Matthews · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bravo! If I had to distill my reaction to The Digital Delusion into a single line, it would be this: finally, an education book that actually says the quiet parts out loud—and backs them with coherent thought instead of tech-evangelist glitter.

This is, without hyperbole, one of the most incisive examinations of the modern classroom I’ve ever encountered. It’s as though the author took every half-formed instinct educators have whispered in faculty lounges—Kids aren’t actually learning better with more screens, the data dashboards are running us instead of the other way around, this isn’t innovation, it’s distraction with a marketing budget—and unfolded those instincts into a rigorous, elegantly argued narrative.

[Chelsea DeLorme · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the MAKE IT MAKE SENSE Era, here's the book that does!

If you've ever asked questions about EdTech or your own attention, The Digital Delusion reads like a relief and a rallying cry. Essentially: If you can read it, you can change things for the better, starting right now.

The genius of this book is the genius of coherence and in some ways the genius of the obvious: Collectively, we got distracted by information overload. And when you're distracted you're vulnerable, you're overwhelmed, and it’s easy to lose track….

But Dr. Horvath (cognitive neuroscientist, educator, writer) cuts through the noise, throws FOMO in the back seat and drives home the huge breadth of what we know about how humans learn best, backed up by brain science and history; paired with critical insights and practical actions. It's an expertly structured exit from DeLuluville—and makes a compelling case that it's time to get out.... while we still can.

Educators, parents, technologists and policy makers have huge roles to play here (and the how-to is included). This is all information that students/kids deserve to know as well.

Dr. Horvath delivers light friction (reading!) for a great payoff: Renewed clarity and purpose with the ability to communicate how students/our kids learn best—and why. In sum: It’s a prescription for sanity and human flourishing that people across the political spectrum can get behind.

*Spoiler alert*: The Rx is not gamification. It's not a cheap app. And it's not AI. It's all relational and deeply human. And it will make people's whole lives—not just classrooms—better if we can get there.

[Note that this book is a tuning fork for awareness to marketing messages and false-promises. It may cause instances of sudden alertness and strokes of insight.]

Good to know: 
There are 3 practical "Toolkit" sections for Parents, Teachers, and Leaders that have checklists, frameworks, samples, alternatives, etc. The book is 267 pages (with an additional reference section totaling 333 pages), but it's a fast read.

JCH studies pedagogy and presentation: He nails the topic with expertise, wit and a distinctive voice. There's a lot here, it's all fascinating, and none of it is filler.

Save humanity and pass it on!


2 Writing Samples from Sidebars:
"What's at Stake - The purpose of education is to prepare kids for an ever-changing world--to build skills they can carry into new and unpredictable situations. Digital learning delivers the opposite. It flattens experience, making knowledge harder to recall and apply outside the device. Our children need real-world learning that transfers. If they're never taught to think beyond the screen, they'll forever remain trapped inside it." p. 52

"Prove It - When someone claims that EdTech has 'potential', don't argue with their beliefs--ask for their data. Potential is not a plan. If a tool truly works, there should be clear, independently verifiable results to prove it. If that data doesn't exist, then it's not a viable solution. It's merely a sales-pitch and it doesn't belong in our children's classrooms." p. 68

[Peter Richardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a powerful and challenging read! In Horvath's conclusion he says; "This was never a book about rejecting technology; it was about reclaiming education as a deeply meaningful and human endeavor. It wasn't about moving away from screens; it was about reorienting toward deep thought and true understanding. It wasn't about scrapping devices; it was about reclaiming rigor."

This book has given caused me to stop and consider; what really is best for our students in today's classrooms.

[Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Sensationalist writing, lack of clarity around the definition of EdTech, and issues of causation vs causality got in the way of what might otherwise be solid arguments.

[Meghan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important book for every educator!

I will admit, when ChatGPT first emerged I was an advocate for bringing it into the classroom. I believed it was our duty as educators to teach students how to use it because it was "inevitable" and "necessary" for their future. I believed it was a signal to teachers that we had to (nay, had the opportunity to) get more creative with the ways we assessed our students. It didn't take long for me to change my mind.

I plan on recommending this book to the administration at my school. In staff meetings, team planning, and PLCs we have discussed at length how to address the fragmented attention spans, rapidly decreasing frustration tolerance, lack of foundational skills, and decreased confidence to little avail. Horvath not only uses research and concrete evidence to explain how technology has harmed student learning, but he provides action steps with reproducible tool kits that all stakeholders can use to start fixing the problems.

[Tasha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend for all teachers/ parents/ community members interested in education. Throw out the screens! TL; DR -- it is better for literacy to invest in heating and cooling systems for schools than technology. (Coming out from Penguin RH this summer)

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

A colleague of mine in the high school English department where I teach put it best when he said it felt like the author had been in the office with us over the past three years, listening to our conversations about AI and what digital technology was doing to our students. For a book about education, and endorsement like this is the highest praise imaginable, and Jared Cooney Horvath's 2026 book The Digital Delusion does feel like the most timely and coherent take on everything that has gone wrong with school in the years since the field was infiltrated by EdTech and Silicon Valley startups. As a classroom teacher, I can tell you: it's been a disaster, and there's something deeply affirming about a book that validates what I've seen in the past decade of my 20+ year career in the classroom. I wish I could say it isn't a crisis, but it absolutely is.

Horvath, a neuroscientist and former classroom teacher, makes cognitive development his primary focus in the book, demonstrating through a body of research how learning occurs and how all these apps and sites and screens undermine all of our best practices. Look, I'm not a neuroscientist or researcher myself, so I'm taking for granted that these studies are reliable and valid, but everything in the book squares with what I see as a teacher: students unable to focus, pull themselves away from their screens, or resist the urge to offload their thinking to counterproductive LLMs. I can only hope The Digital Delusion gains a fraction of the audience and influence Jonathan Haidt's similarly insightful book The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Caused an Epidemic of Mental Illness has. Schools that correctly banned cellphones need to give serious thought to eliminating screens altogether (or at least relegating them to a designated computer lab). I'm happy books like this exist and that professionals and the general public are finally starting to push back against the tech industry and dumb narratives about inevitability and being left behind. Here's to the new Luddites!

[Kim Shank · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for parents and educators. I felt very validated in the decisions I made in the classroom. Because teachers have known this all along! Sadly, systems require certain platforms be used and often are sold the idea that we have to stay current with the times and prepare kids for the newest technology. Often times these decisions are made with the adults in mind and not the students and their learning.

This book provides you with the cognitive science of how the brain learns and demonstrates that Ed tech cannot physically do what our brains need in order to learn. You can’t unlearn it once you know it; after reading, you’ll want to go back completely old school. But if you know anything about learning, this shouldn’t be shocking to you. They give great chapters and resources for parents, teachers, and school leaders for how to advocate for and make these changes in your school. As the adults, we have to do better for our kids, and we have to start asking the questions and pushing back.

[Laura Kate Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 🍎 succinct and timely, a data-driven call for closer analyzing of any tech welcomed into our classrooms.

[Tara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every teacher and parent should read this book. As a parent, the book resonates. As a teacher, I’ve already gone analog. This book helps me to navigate those questions I get when there’s push back.

[Adam · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is not a serious piece of research, it is a self-published manifesto. The few valid points made are buried beneath cherry-picked statistics, correlational evidence, logical fallacies, straw men, and moral panic.

Within the first 5 pages, the central flaw of The Digital Delusion becomes clear: Dr. Horvath views ‘EdTech’ as a singular instructional intervention.

This is wrong. A laptop is an instructional medium, not an instructional intervention.

Dr. Horvath should know this, given some of the research he cites.

In his landmark Visible Learning: The Sequel, Dr. John Hattie dedicates a chapter to instructional technology. After recounting generally positive effect sizes for the different ways in which it can be used to actualize pedagogy (“The message throughout this chapter is not that technology has not made a difference. It has, and that is what an effect of 0.3 to 0.5 signifies” (p.408, Visible Learning), Dr. Hattie says the following. Bolding is mine:

“If there is to be a third edition of Visual Learning, there would not be a chapter on technology influences, as it is time to think of technology like curricula, books, and other resources, and focus more on the implementation effects when including technologies and teaching methods, the when and how within the teaching cycle, the dosage and the fidelity of various apps, and so on….”

“Edtech” isn’t a single treatment, it’s a blanket term for thousands of different digital curricula and applications. You can’t aggregate the impact of all of them simply because they all have a screen and connect to the internet. To do so is bad science, as is argued by Dr. John Hattie, the United Nations, and many other researchers.

To me, this undercuts the entire thesis of the book. It also leads directly into some of the logical fallacies that follow.

Dr. Horvath argues that “Edtech” perpetuates 5 lies: Education is broken, multimedia enhances learning, free choice leads to better learning, kids learn best on their own, and intelligent tutors make kids more intelligent.

First, who is “Edtech”? Dr. Horvath doesn’t provide sources.

For example, while explaining the first “lie” that Edtech perpetuates, that education is broken, he says: “This narrative has been repeated so many times in op-eds, on TED stages, and in keynote speeches that it almost feels self-evident.” He then fails to cite a single op-ed, TED talk, or keynote speech.

It seems he’s referencing Sir Ken Robinson’s famous Do Schools Kill Creativity? If so, what does that have to do with technology?

Somewhere in the middle of slaying each of these 5 straw men, I started to wonder: Who published this? How could they let him say all this without citing specific companies, people, or organizations perpetuating these lies? Then I looked at the copyright page and realized it was self-published.

Chapter 3 of Dr. Horvath’s book is the most important chapter, as it presents the corpus of evidence he feels justifies “pulling the plug” on Edtech.

Dr. Horvath cites declining PISA scores (the world’s largest standardized test) from 2012, 2015, and 2018, which correlate with the widespread adoption of educational technology in developed countries: “The more time students spent on screens at school, the further their scores fell. Those who used a computer for more than 6 hours per day scored 66 points lower than their peers who didn’t use them at all.”

This argument is a logical fallacy: Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc. After, therefore, because of. Correlation is not causation. Just becuase EdTech use increased, and scores dropped, does not prove that EdTech caused the drop. People who carry umbrellas are more likely to wear rain boots, etc., etc.

None of the research on test scores presented is causal. Let’s look at it anyway, as we’ll find that even the correlational evidence was cherry-picked to fit a narrative.

The OECD analysis correlating screen time and PISA scores showed a correlation in which students who spent 5–7 hours per day on “digital devices” for leisure at school scored 10–12 points lower than students who spent 3–5 hours per day. First, Dr. Horvath has left the “for leisure” qualifier. Second, he’s left out that this study lumps all digital devices under one label. No distinction is made between personal cellphones vs. school-managed laptops. These are both critical distinctions if we’re going to use this study to justify school laptop policies.

Regardless, other important data have also been left out: Students who spend one to five hours per day on digital devices for learning at school achieve twenty PISA score points higher in mathematics than those who spend no time on such devices. 15-year-old students who use digital devices moderately for learning at school tend to perform better and report a greater sense of belonging at school. Why were these points left out? Dr. Horvath even acknowledges them later in the book (see p.78-79), but argues “learning isn’t unique to computers,” so these researchers are wrong. If the researchers are wrong, why are you citing them?

Another critical point to note: Many great technology tools aren’t primarily designed to improve standardized test scores! If a tool’s theory of change isn’t focused on raising PISA scores, then declines in those scores don’t falsify their value.

These illogical conclusions happen when you ignore the advice of researchers and erroneously lump all digitally mediated interventions under one misleading “Edtech” banner.

Dr. Horvath continues with the correlational evidence between declining test scores and technology usage using Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) data. He simply references scores on the respective websites of these tests. If he were to seek out studies of these scores, here’s what he’d find:

Researchers warn against his exact approach. Simply correlating aggregate tech use and test scores is not useful. Researchers rightfully argue, similar to Hattie and the U.N. previously, that we should instead study effective tech use & scores vs. ineffective tech use. They argue for this precisely because there are so many experimental and small-scale studies showing positive effects of technological applications on student performance in various subject areas such as literacy, mathematics, and science (Chauhan, 2017; Cheung & Slavin, 2012, 2013; Sung et al., 2016). I would also add this recent meta-analysis by Dr. Rebecca Silverman at Stanford, which, among other things, showed a positive effect size for digitally mediated early childhood literacy tools. Because of this, Dr. Silverman concluded that “investment in educational technology to support literacy is warranted, and the prevalence of educational technology in schools is justified.”

Not only does Dr. Horvath not include this mountain of research, he does the opposite of what the researchers in these studies advocate for. Why?

Dr. Horvath does acknowledges Hattie’s meta-analysis showing positive effect sizes for Edtech. He then does mental gymnastics to deny them, essentially arguing “yes, they are positive, but other interventions have higher effect sizes, so we should use those instead.” To quote him: “So yes, students can learn with EdTech: the effect sizes aren’t negative. But this learning is almost always slower, shallower, and less durable than what’s achieved through human-centered methods like explicit instruction (+.64), guided discussions (+.82), and jigsaw teaching (+1.16).”

The misunderstanding of technology as a intervention rather than a medium has again led into a logical fallacy: False dichotomy: You either use “Edtech” OR you use explicit instruction, guided discussion, etc. This fails to acknowledge that…YOU CAN USE EDTECH TO AUGMENT EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION, GUIDED DISCUSSIONS, AND JIGSAW TEACHING!

Dr. Horvath concludes the evidence section of the book by arguing that chemicals and structures in our brains make technology an inherently flawed medium for learning. He leans heavily into his background as a neuroscientist here (“..rulesets must be loaded into a small area called the lateral prefrontal cortex (LatPFC)” etc.).

Some of what he argues is true. Split attention is bad for learning. Technology can be distracting. Empathy and belonging are built around human connection, which screens cannot offer. Technology can sometimes make things too easy.

This is all overstated, as it ignores context.

Most of the studies cited in this chapter were done at the neurological level or in the context of large, undergraduate courses on personal devices with no content filters. Most importantly, neuroscience ≠ classroom practice, because teaching is inherently social and complex.

Dr. Daniel Willingham has referred to these sorts of arguments as nuero-garbage: using neuroscience language and concepts in education that overstate what brain findings can tell teachers about how to teach. To quote Dr. Willingham:

“We can’t take lab findings and pop them right into the classroom… lab findings consistently show that repetition is good for memory. But you can’t mindlessly implement that in schools--”keep repeating this til you’ve got it, kids!” Repetition is good for memory, but terrible for motivation.”

Neurons are not classrooms. They describe what is happening inside a brain; classrooms describe what is happening between people. The behavioral outcomes teachers care about (e.g., reading fluently, solving equations, writing, etc.) are shaped by instruction, motivation, and social context. The technology tools teachers use operate at that same level.

Pointing to a brain region that lights up during a grammar lesson doesn’t tell a teacher what to do on a cold Thursday morning in February when Bart keeps making fart noises and Lisa is mad at Jessica because Steven told her something he wasn’t supposed to, so now Lisa is acting out and distracting Jackie, who is now behind and confused about her grammar lesson.

There’s a gap between knowing that a neural process exists and knowing how to design instruction around it. It’s never one-to-one in the way that Dr. Horvath presents. There are too many ever-changing variables in teaching to reduce it to laboratory science and neurological chemicals. It’s why “good teaching”, and even intervention effect size, are deeply contextual.

Brain science doesn’t show that technology is incompatible with learning. It shows that attention, retrieval, feedback, and cognitive effort drive learning. Technology can both support and undermine those processes, depending on how it’s designed and implemented.

Dr. Horvath literally testified in front of the United States Senate, using aforementioned evidence, to encourage lawmakers to strip educational technology resources from the hands of educators. These blanket screen bans would be a profound mistake, like much of this book is. They ignore the difference between poorly designed technology and thoughtful design and implementation. They would remove tools that tens of thousands of educators rely on to differentiate instruction, provide feedback, reduce administrative burden, and respond to the very real assessment challenges posed by AI. They would do so based on cherry-picked data, correlational evidence, logical fallacies, straw men, and moral panic.

We should improve how technology is used in K12 classrooms. We should push back on arguments that treat technology as inherently incompatible with learning, like those presented in this book.

[Jason Neff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Devoured this in three days. Might be the most important work in education in the last decade. Read it, then buy a copy for your head of school / principal and give to them. Then recommend it to all the parents you can.

[Jenni Hill · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was looking forward to read this book because it touches on some really important issues, but I was unable to finish it because of the constant use of 'it's not this... it's this...'

Here are just a few examples from the first 11 pages alone:

"Our mistake wasn't in trusting schools or teachers. It was in trusting the seductive promises."
"Schools may not be perfect - but they aren't broken"
"Creativity isn't the opposite of knowledge - rather, it emerges from it"
"Their stories fell flat; not because they lacked creativity, but because they lacked knowledge"
"The real danger isn't that schools are broken. It's that we've been persuaded that they are"
"It's not the technology that makes the difference; it's the pedagogy"
"Unnecessary audiovisual elements often interfere with understanding rather than deepen it"
"The multi-media didn't enhance the lesson; it completely misdirected it"
"If our goal is deep, durable learning, then our time, energy and resources are better spent improving teaching - not upgrading multimedia."

I was also distracted by phrases like "Repetition without scrutiny is how a myth becomes a mandate" which felt quite vague, meaningless and I hate to say it... like something ChatGPT would come up with.

I could be wrong. I'm also not completely against using AI - I use it myself when I have writer's block or I'm struggling to make sense of something complex. But when I buy a book (especially one from a doctor writing about the dangers of technology in education), I'd like to think I'm reading genuine insights from an expert's brain rather than something thrown together by an LLM. And unfortunately, I couldn't trust that was the case here.

[Mr. R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Horvath opens his book with a deliberately provocative claim: "Our children are less cognitively capable than we were at their age...Generation Z is demonstrably less healthy, less happy, and less cognitively developed than their parents were at the same age" (xv). From my perspective as a teacher with eighteen years of experience, this assertion resonates. The shift has been rapid and unmistakable: students have shorter attention spans, are less inclined toward sustained creative work, and are increasingly absorbed by games and distractions on smartphones and Chromebooks.

One of the book's strengths is its clear and accessible explanation of these trends. Dr. Horvath persuasively examines why cognitive memory is struggling and how ubiquitous digital devices can impede human development, innovation, and creativity. As a result, I have already recommended the book to several colleagues and plan to incorporate more "analog" practices into my own teaching.

That said, the book would benefit from a more in-depth analysis in certain areas. While I appreciated the practical suggestions for returning to note-taking on paper, I would have welcomed a more extensive application of Dr. Horvath's neuroscience expertise to explain in greater detail how and why the brain struggles in device-saturated environments. Additionally, the absence of a chapter on how to directly speak to students feels like a missed opportunity. Students are often interested when they learn about the cognitive and emotional effects of their habits. A chapter translating this research for a student audience, or explaining how to communicate this information to a student audience, would have further strengthened the book's impact.

Grade: B+

[Karen · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids' Learning- And How to Help Them Thrive Again
by Jared Horvath
3 out of 5 stars (rounded up from 2.5)

One-sentence summary: This book is a plea for teachers to start using instructional practices that makes sense and to push away the technology that doesn't.

This book started out absolutely fantastic. I thought for sure I was reading my next five-star read. The author makes some spot-on claims about some of the ed-tech that I have used in my career. It is more of a game than it is a learning tool, or even a tool used for practice. However, throughout the book it became obvious that the author doesn't trust teachers to make those judgement calls as part of their professional lesson planning. Although it IS possible to sit students in front of a program and think they are learning without guidance, I don't actually know of any teachers who do this. About halfway through the book I started to feel offended instead of inspired.

The book became too heavy-handed and one-sided. In the end, this was a persuasive essay that did not need to be developed into a whole book. I would not recommend reading the first 40% of the book to gain background knowledge, then make professional decisions based on what is right for your students. I think the most ironic part of this whole situation is that I bought and read the book on my Kindle.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a badly needed beacon of empirical sanity. I've been teaching for nearly decade, and began my career with the very first group of students who had access to smartphones all 4 years of high school. Over that time, I've noticed everything that Dr. Horvath's studies reveal: decreased attention spans, literacy rates, imaginations, memory & recall, executive functions, critical thinking skills, social skills, fine motor skills, self-esteem, curiosity, etc.

While my generation is the first to be poorer than the previous one in modern history, my students' is the first to be less literate, which is completely unacceptable and defies every promise made by the more than $40 billion annual edtech grift. This is a worldwide problem with one clear and destructive culprit, and the dumpster fire that is the internet has only been enflamed by the gasoline that is AI.

The book is made especially for educators, is supported by a depth of quantitative and qualitative data, and includes tools and plans for helping change not just your classroom but your PLC, school, & district. It's been a great success and benefit for the past 1 1/2 years to switch class to physical pencil and paper only for most all assignments, and treat the internet/AI like nuclear energy - helpful under some extremely regulated circumstances, apocalyptic under most others.

[Lizzie Basalyga · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this book.

Is the writing perfect? No. Is the data analysis a bit shallow? Yes. Are there some cheesy lines? Absolutely. But still…the content and claims in this book are SO IMPORTANT. I absolutely loved it, and half of my book is marked up with underlines and “yes!” notes in the margins. As a middle school teacher, I think many families have no idea what is happening in schools today. It’s clear Dr. Horvath has spent time with students and teachers in a typical classroom setting. It will give you a real glimpse into the current state of education.

This book is a great starting point for the much needed discussion around technology in schools. I am so grateful to this author for publishing his work and hope it inspires teachers to push back, parents to ask questions, and administrators to pause and think about their school tech policies. I would love to see more authors and researchers dedicate their time to this topic.

Technology use in schools is literally the thing keeping me up at night. So please, read this book and join me in my insomnia!

[Lindsay Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whether you are a teacher, principal, parent, district employee - anyone and everyone who oversees, mentors, or teaches children MUST read this book. I have always felt it was the moral imperative of adults to protect children from an increasingly digital world; this book just gave me the confidence, the language, and the data to fight for it.

Jonathan Haidt’s book sparked the conversation around social media - but Jared took it to the next level. As he often says - he’s done all the research so that we don’t have to. It brings qualitative and quantitative data that you CANNOT ignore and will give you the tools and practical strategies to act on both micro and macro levels: in your own home, in your classroom, or in your school. This isn’t about scrapping devices; it’s about reclaiming rigor in our classrooms and fighting for what we value in homes and schools: human connection and relationships - something technology will never offer.

[TJM · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much needed wake-up call to an unfolding disaster- I have witnessed the digital delusion ("solution") unfold before my eyes since I entered the classroom in 2007. Without a doubt, I can say that my current grade 5 students are different from their peers 20 years ago. They are more distracted, lacking the most basic academic skills, and unable to endure even 10 minutes of productive struggle (meaning real work). It’s even worse at the secondary level (having taught secondary for 3 years). This is an utter disaster in the making. What makes matters worse is that most educators have a vague sense something is wrong yet have no clue as what it is or how to fix it. Some even advocate for more “gamification” as a solution to dismal academic performance and apathetic, work avoiding classroom culture. It’s quite astounding to watch this play out among seemingly educated professionals with no end in sight. Poor students.

[Meg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here is another book, just like The Anxious Generation, that I want to recommend to anyone who cares about children! Teachers, principals, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc., this was such an important book for me to read. I have been moving more towards becoming more analog in my own life and part of that has been feeding into my classroom as well. This book gave me tips on how to view some of the EdTech programs we use with a more critical eye. There was enough evidence in this book to show the horrible correlation between screens and a LACK of academic growth across multiple studies of students in various locations around the world. I am a firm believer in paper-pencil activities for students in the classroom. I loved how this author claimed not to be anti-tech but pro-learning - that perspective comes across clearly in his writing. I highly recommend this book! Thank you, Mark, for lending me a copy to read!

[Elise Goulet Pedersen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tout le monde qui travaille en éducation doit lire ce livre. Je trouve finalement des réponses à la question que je me pose depuis plusieurs années : Pourquoi les jeunes ont-ils de plus en plus de difficultés à l’école ? Il explique comment fonctionne le cerveau : comment il mémorise, apprend et réutilise ses connaissances.

Tous les enseignants doivent de familiariser avec la façon dont apprend le cerveau pour mieux servir ses élèves en leur offrant des expériences d’apprentissage efficaces.

J’ai trouvé difficile de constater que les messages qu’on nous « vendaient » dans les derniers 10-15 ans ont mené à cet échec de EdTech.

Retrouvons les méthodes éprouvées pour aider nos élèves à apprendre.

Il ne faut pas assumer que le progrès technologique est synonyme de progrès pédagogique.

[Scott C · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you enjoyed Jonathan Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation” and you’re an educator or even a concerned parent that wants to know the educational ramifications of what technology has done, this book is for you.

I’m a 10 year teacher, and a 6 year school board member and my goal is to advocate for the policies mentioned in here. Our students have clearly gotten worse as it relates to academic results, behaviors, focus, and a multitude of other things.

The book presents the problems with data points, and ways to combat those that say technology gets students prepared or any other claim meant to gas light us from the truth we know.

This isn’t meant to be anti technology, but pro education. The book is one of the best I’ve ever read as it relates to education.

[Michelle Jensen · Rating 1 out of 5]

The most disappointing thing about this book is that the title and cover communicate a very polarizing message when so much of the content is aligned with the beliefs and values of leaders in the EdTech community. Rather than choose a title promoting careful, intentional EdTech use, The Digital Delusion sends a vilifying message. This isn’t a surprise. Authors and editors know extremes sell. What Horvath asserts as common practice regarding EdTech is universally agreed to be poor practice. Unfortunately, this book sows distrust in professionals who have dedicated their careers to EdTech use aligned with the very ideas he advocates for. His (not new or unique) ideas are 5 star. His hostility is 0 star.

[Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was very good. Anyone who has children, or who works with children, or who has children in their life that they love, should read this book. It essentially offers a lot of research and excellent insights on how EdTech (all the laptops in school, the Chromebooks, the homework via screens, etc) does little to nothing for actually teaching true critical thinking skills and deep knowledge. Horvath even takes supposed studies that "prove" that all this technology helps with learning and shows you where they are, in fact, flawed, and actually debunks them. It's an alarming, important book.
I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 only because it could feel a bit repetitive at times, but that's a minor critique. Overall, I definitely recommend this book.

[Betsy T. · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolutely must-read, not just for anyone who cares about kids, but anyone who cares about our collective future. Jared Cooney Horvath has written an engaging, evidence-based review of the impact of “Ed Tech” in schools, going beyond the data showing the negative correlation between technology use and academic outcomes, to an explanation of why that is the case based on brain science. I will be giving a copy of this book to every member of our district’s Board of Education, our Superintendent, at a minimum. I urge everyone to do the same!

[Grace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and important read for all teachers, parents, school board members, and school administrators.

This book offers detailed but concise explanations for how digital technology in classrooms has harmed student learning outcomes. The author is not anti-tech but rather is pro-learning.

There is very practical advice for all levels, from parents to teachers to school leaders/administrators.

[Erica · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most important books out right now for parents, teachers, and anyone who cares about our future. Jared expresses views that are not anti-tech, but pro-learning and has the research to back it up.

The line that will stick with me most: “We are not adapting the tools to fit our kids—we are reshaping by our kids to fit the tools.” If that doesn’t give you pause, I don’t know what will.

[Tara Walsh · Rating 3 out of 5]

In many ways this book is fantastic and it makes some great points. The one issue I have with it is that it naively lumps all tech products together rather than distinguishing the differences and uses of some that are in particular supplementary and not core resources. This is a very important distinction to make as tech products of which video would be a a part are great supplements to classroom instruction if used with pedagogy.

[Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This provides interesting insight into the use of technology in education. It's good food for thought. I'm encouraged to ask questions about why my children are using so much technology in the classroom and what evidence if there that technology "short cuts" are better learning tools.

I would encourage parents of school aged children to read this book. As parents, let's avoid passivity in adopting technology in the classroom.

[Jeff Pett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read for parents of K-12 students, teachers, and K-12 school administrators. It outlines how the use of EdTech in our classrooms over the past 15 years or so has handicapped our children’s ability to learn. We have all suspected it, and Dr. Horvath points us to how rhe damage occurs and ways to move schools beyond it.